Introducing nuance to any debate on Twitter feels like an impossible quest, but I will just try: Obviously I can empathise with people whose mental health is so bad, they have to break some rules to survive. Obviously, they are a minority.

Not all the people getting on the train at St Pancras are going because of severe mental health issues. No one's mental health issues will be fixed by going to Nando's or the pub. And let's not conflate 'mental health issues' with 'I will be a bit sad if I don't have Christmas'.

Having a Zoom Christmas dinner with my family yesterday was hard - very hard. I would have LOVED to go home for Christmas. It will be an incredibly hard couple of weeks. And I *have* severe mental health issues. But my life isn't in danger. Staying home WAS an option.

With the government providing little to no mental health support, I know that there are some people who NEED to risk hurting others because otherwise they'll definitely hurt themselves. I obviously understand that.

But if you know even a little bit about who I am and what I stand for, you'd know that I am not talking about the super vulnerable here. Nor am I talking about people whose bosses FORCE them to work. If anything, I'm defending these exact people, for whom it's life or death.

We've got to be able to be nuanced about this. 280 characters isn't enough. So we've got to do a lot of the work ourselves, to figure out: hey, is this person talking about me in particular or are they maybe making a broader point?

I am talking about the people who think it's 'hard' sticking to the rules. Because yeah, it IS hard. And if people had followed the rules in March, we'd all be able to celebrate Christmas with our loved ones. You know exactly who I'm talking about. And who I'm not talking about.

Basically, if you can physically stay at home and it would suck a lot, but it wouldn't literally kill you, then you need to stay at home, then the 'but mental health' caveat doesn't apply to you.